Armenia’s EU Aspirations: Balancing Between Brussels and Moscow

Armenia’s recent steps towards European Union membership have sparked intense debate about the nation’s geopolitical direction.

A lively discussion on the AnewZ channel, moderated by Orkhan Amashov, explored Armenia’s bid to align with the EU while maintaining its deep economic and political ties with Russia. The panel included Gary Cartwright, publisher of EU Today, Ashbek Kotchikian, Professor at the American University of Armenia, and Dmitri Babich, a Russian political analyst.

The EU Membership Bid

On 8th January 2025, Armenia’s government approved a draft law initiating the process for EU membership. While Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan clarified that the move is merely the beginning of a long diplomatic negotiation process, the step has nonetheless garnered international attention.

“This is a very good headline for Prime Minister Pashinyan,” said Cartwright. “It creates the impression that he’s driving Armenia towards the EU, even though actual accession is likely decades away.” However, he cautioned that past enlargement rounds have made the EU wary of admitting new members, particularly post-Soviet states.

Professor Kotchikian offered a nuanced view, describing the move as “a political gesture rather than a practical step,” adding that “Armenia is sending a message to both the West and Russia, demonstrating its intent to diversify its geopolitical options.”

Russia’s Leverage

The discussion highlighted Armenia’s economic dependence on Russia, which has intensified despite Yerevan’s recent political pivot. Trade turnover between the two countries doubled in 2024 compared to the previous year, reaching $10.2 billion. Armenia remains reliant on Russian gas and has reportedly facilitated re-exports of goods for sanctioned Russian entities.

Babich dismissed the idea that Armenia’s EU bid could be immediately consequential. “Russia is trying to be as polite as possible,” he said. “But patience can run out if Yerevan’s actions jeopardise its obligations under the Eurasian Economic Union.”

However, Kotchikian emphasised that Armenian public opinion has shifted over time. “Pro-Russian sentiments in Armenia have been declining for years, especially after the 2020 war, which left many Armenians feeling abandoned by Moscow,” he said.

Regional Dynamics

Azerbaijan’s response to Armenia’s EU ambitions also featured prominently in the debate. While Baku has generally supported regional neighbours joining the EU, it views the deployment of an EU civilian mission on Armenia’s side of the border as problematic.

Cartwright argued that unresolved tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan could undermine Armenia’s EU aspirations. “Post-conflict situations are always difficult to manage,” he said. “A change of leadership in Armenia might actually facilitate better regional relations.”

Babich, however, criticised the EU’s role in the region. “Western missions have historically been ineffective in resolving long-standing conflicts,” he said. “The Minsk Group is a case in point—it achieved virtually nothing over decades.”

The Geopolitical Tightrope

Armenia’s bid to align more closely with the EU is seen as part of a broader attempt to reduce its dependence on Russia. But as Babich noted, this is not without risks. “Armenia must recognise that closer ties with the EU could mean losing the economic benefits it derives from the Eurasian Economic Union,” he warned.

Kotchikian agreed that the path to EU membership is fraught with challenges but underscored the symbolic value of the move. “This is Armenia hedging its bets, showing the West it is serious about reform, even if concrete results are far away,” he said.

Cartwright struck a sceptical tone about the feasibility of EU accession. “I don’t think Armenia’s EU aspirations will go beyond the headline stage anytime soon,” he said. “But for Pashinyan, the optics are everything, especially domestically.”

The panel concluded that while Armenia’s EU bid is unlikely to result in membership in the near future, its geopolitical implications are profound. It signals a clear intent to diversify alliances, potentially straining ties with Moscow while complicating the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process.

As Kotchikian aptly summarised, “Armenia’s current actions are more about perceptions and signalling than immediate results.” Whether those signals resonate in Brussels or provoke Moscow remains to be seen.

Babich issued a cautionary note: “This is not just about geopolitics; it’s also about ideology. Armenia must tread carefully to avoid destabilising the delicate balance in the South Caucasus.”

The debate illuminated the complexity of Armenia’s strategic manoeuvring, which is emblematic of the broader challenges faced by small nations navigating between great powers.

 

Main Image: Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan meets with President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell in Brussels, 5th April 2024, by U.S. Department of State, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=147107437

Click here for more News & Current Affairs at EU Today